AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A the Costco review process, but resulted in a better understanding of cumulative Page 6 conditions including the potential benefits of Costco's proposed offsite improvements to Middlefield Road. The City's traffic engineer as well as the City's peer review traffic consultant reviewed the revised traffic study and all of the nine Attachments, including four that were updated, for inclusion in the Draft EIR. The Traffic and Circulation section in the Draft EIR is based on the revised traffic study and the updated Attachments. As indicated above, when the Draft EIR and its appendices were prepared for production by the EIR consultant, the old Attachments were included with the updated traffic study. The appellants identified this discrepancy when they noted that although the traffic study includes reference to the Stanford project, they could find no reference to it in the pertinent technical attachments. This production error was identified after the June 19, 2007 hearing. Staff has determined, in consultation with the City Attorney, that preparation of an Addendum to the EIR (pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines) is the most appropriate method for including the correct Attachments to Appendix D of the Draft EIR. The production error does not result in the need to change either the traffic study in Appendix D or the Traffic and Circulation section in the Draft EIR. The traffic study is the most current and correct traffic study, and the Traffic and Circulation section of the Draft EIR is based on that traffic study. These sections of the Draft EIR were developed using the new data with the Stanford Outpatient project included. Inclusion of the correct Attachments does not trigger the need for a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines because the information does not result in the identification of new environmental impacts nor increase the severity of identified environmental impacts. The Addendum provides the correct technical data supporting the traffic study, but does not result in any new conclusions about the project impacts or mitigation measures. Under Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum does not need to be circulated or noticed for public revievJ. The decision making body (Le., City Council) is required to "consider" the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. The Addendum is being provided to the Council under separate cover. The Addendu m is also being provided to the appellants for their reference, with acknowledgement for their diligence and communication in bringing this matter to the attention of staff. Public Outreach In an effort to maintain ongoing communication with interested parties. there has been a significant degree of public outreach for the Costco project throughout the two-year review period. The list below identifies all of the public meetings conducted for the project. In all cases, notices were sent to a broad mailing list of about 1.500 addresses in both English and Spanish. The City's website has also been maintained since fall 2006 with all public review documents that had been completed to date. Further description of each of these efforts is included in the June 19, 2007 Planning Commission I Zoning Administrator staff report. . April 26, 2005 Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Joint Study Session and CEQA Scoping Meeting . July 21, 2005 Redwood Village Neighborhood Association Meeting with Costco representatives in attendance